Legal experts dismiss Elon Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters as baseless
Legal experts criticize Elon Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters, calling it weak and bogus They argue it goes against the First Amendment and could backfire
Legal experts criticize Elon Musk's lawsuit against Media Matters, arguing that it goes against the First Amendment and could have serious consequences. Filed on Monday by X (formerly Twitter), the lawsuit accuses Media Matters of publishing a report that distorted the likelihood of ads appearing next to extremist content on X. This allegedly led to major advertisers pulling their campaigns. The lawsuit calls for Media Matters to take down the analysis, claiming that their testing methodology was not representative of real user experience on the platform.
According to Ted Boutrous, a First Amendment attorney with extensive experience in the tech industry, the case seems to be an illegitimate effort to stifle criticism, contradicting fundamental First Amendment principles. Boutrous cautioned that the lawsuit might backfire for X during the discovery phase, as Media Matters could potentially request internal information that could be damaging to the social media company if revealed at trial. Additionally, law professor and CNN contributor Steve Vladeck pointed out that the lawsuit has "fatal flaws" due to its admission that ads did appear alongside extremist content, regardless of how Media Matters achieved that result.
"The complaint acknowledges that the situation Media Matters was highlighting did indeed occur," stated Vladeck. "Many companies would not want their ads to be associated with neo-Nazi content even once, regardless of the exact percentage of users who were exposed to it."
Vladeck also clarified that Media Matters did not claim that their findings were representative of other users' experiences, contrary to the complaint.
A Texas forum
Despite some analysts mocking the lawsuit as weak, they are not dismissing the possibility that it could progress. This is due to X's strategic choice to file in a Texas court known for being generally supportive of his cause.
District Judge Mark Pittman, a Donald Trump appointee known for involvement in major legal battles, including those related to gun rights and President Joe Biden's blocked student loan forgiveness plan, was assigned X's case on Monday. Legal experts are questioning whether Musk's decision to file in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas can address the substantive shortcomings of the lawsuits.
Accusing Media Matters of distorting the truth, X claimed the group misrepresented the likelihood of advertisers' ads appearing alongside pro-Nazi or White supremacist content. Musk alleged that Media Matters created a test account to follow extremist material and repeatedly refreshed the feed until X's ad system displayed ads for major brands.
X does not seem to deny monetizing extremist content or that the brands' ads ran alongside it.
Joan Donovan, a professor of journalism and emerging media studies at Boston University, noted that X does admit the ads were shown next to hateful content, but argues it was rare. She also mentioned that this is the same strategy employed by advertisers that got YouTube to demonetize political content in 2017.
Litigation attorney Akiva Cohen at Kamerman, Uncyk, Soniker & Klein in New York pointed out that while Musk has historically relied on massive, white-shoe law firms in his other cases, in this situation he is relying on a much smaller firm.
"All the major companies that Elon typically uses? They likely had strong objections. This is definitely not a good idea," Cohen commented on the X alternative BlueSky platform.
"He chose Texas lawyers with political connections, indicating the perception that Texas courts are influenced by politics rather than law," Cohen elaborated. "All three lawyers listed have previously worked for the Texas Attorney General's office or the Solicitor General's office."
After Musk filed a lawsuit on Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a fraud investigation into Media Matters. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey also stated his office was doing the same, prompting Musk to respond "Great!" Vladeck commented that Musk's court pick appears to be an attempt to strengthen a weak claim with a sympathetic bench, suggesting that the lawsuit was filed more for symbolism than for substance.
Media Matters response
In a statement Monday evening, Media Matters President Angelo Carusone vowed to defend the group against the suit.
Carusone characterized the lawsuit as an attempt to intimidate X's critics, while affirming Media Matters' confidence in their reporting. Legal experts recommended that Media Matters may seek to transfer the case out of the Texas federal court due to the lack of a logical connection to the dispute. X is headquartered in California, and Media Matters is based in Washington, D.C.
If the case remains in Texas, the chosen court could benefit X by preventing Media Matters from using state laws in California and the District of Columbia that aim to limit litigation intended to suppress criticism. These laws, known as "anti-SLAPP" laws, do not apply in the federal appeals court that oversees Texas, according to Ken White, a First Amendment lawyer based in Los Angeles.
"X filed this in federal court in Texas to avoid the application of an anti-SLAPP statute," White stated on BlueSky. He added, "X's intention is to harass and abuse and maximize the cost of litigation, and anti-SLAPP statutes interfere with that goal."
Nora Benavidez, senior counsel at the civil rights group Free Press, stated that even if Musk manages to persuade a court to question Media Matters' methodology, it still does not prove that the advertiser revolt was directly caused by the report. Benavidez pointed out that none of the brands that suspended advertising on X have explicitly cited the Media Matters analysis as their reason for doing so. She emphasized that Musk and his lawyers are attempting to single out Media Matters' investigation as the primary factor for the major advertisers leaving X, but these brands are not oblivious. According to Benavidez, they have not only seen their ads placed alongside offensive content, but have also witnessed Musk's own deplorable online conduct, including promoting anti-Semitic posts by other bigots and bullies on the platform.
Brands "have every right to exercise their own free speech rights when deciding how to spend their ad dollars," she added.
- CNNs Oliver Darcy and Jon Passantino contributed to this report
